All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

An Analysis of Employees’ Recalled Role Negotiation Episodes
Unformatted Document Text:  Recalled Role Negotiation Episodes 8 generating joint benefits (Pruitt, 1983; Tutzauer & Roloff, 1988), and may be especially useful as a means to resolve role conflicts and attain goals, rewards, and role clarity (Roloff, 1987). To date, research on employee conflict or negotiation behaviors typically addresses issues such as hours, wages, and power differentials in dyadic relationships, seeking to gain insight into and the improvement of supervisory management skills (Putnam & Poole, 1987). These studies consider work conditions, complaints, supervisory style, personality differences (Roloff, 1987; Tjosvold, Morishima, & Belsheim, 1999) and performance appraisals (Grisby, 1983) without considering how an organizational role will change or information exchanges leading to role change. Yet, "it is evident that we need to conceptualize and study role negotiation in terms of the interdependent influence and negotiation strategies that newcomers and other organizational members use in the process of negotiating roles over time” (Jablin, 2001, p. 781). In an effort to understand some basic components of role negotiation behaviors, particularly those related to integrative behaviors, this study asks, RQ1: What is the relationship between employees’ report of problem-solving versus simple requests to information giving, information seeking, and logrolling in successful role negotiations? Role Negotiation Contexts According to Graen (1976) and others (e.g., Graen & Cashman, 1975; Graen & Scandura, 1987; Graen & Schiemann, 1978), supervisors differentiate in their relationships with subordinates based on employee performance, background, and trustworthiness. High LMX or “in group” relationships are characterized by mutual trust and support (Fairhurst & Chandler, 1989), working closely together with internal common goals and mutual influence (Fairhurst, 2001), and social exchanges extending beyond what is required of the employment contract (Linden, Wayne, & Stillwell, 1993), leading some to characterize these as “high quality relationships” (Fairhurst, 1993; Fairhurst, 2001; Fairhurst, Rogers, & Sarr, 1987; Deluga & Perry, 1991).

Authors: Callies, Letticia. and Miller, Vernon.
first   previous   Page 8 of 38   next   last



background image
Recalled Role Negotiation Episodes
8
generating joint benefits (Pruitt, 1983; Tutzauer & Roloff, 1988), and may be especially useful as a
means to resolve role conflicts and attain goals, rewards, and role clarity (Roloff, 1987).
To date, research on employee conflict or negotiation behaviors typically addresses issues
such as hours, wages, and power differentials in dyadic relationships, seeking to gain insight into
and the improvement of supervisory management skills (Putnam & Poole, 1987). These studies
consider work conditions, complaints, supervisory style, personality differences (Roloff, 1987;
Tjosvold, Morishima, & Belsheim, 1999) and performance appraisals (Grisby, 1983) without
considering how an organizational role will change or information exchanges leading to role
change. Yet, "it is evident that we need to conceptualize and study role negotiation in terms of the
interdependent influence and negotiation strategies that newcomers and other organizational
members use in the process of negotiating roles over time” (Jablin, 2001, p. 781). In an effort to
understand some basic components of role negotiation behaviors, particularly those related to
integrative behaviors, this study asks,
RQ1: What is the relationship between employees’ report of problem-solving versus simple
requests to information giving, information seeking, and logrolling in successful role
negotiations?
Role Negotiation Contexts
According to Graen (1976) and others (e.g., Graen & Cashman, 1975; Graen & Scandura,
1987; Graen & Schiemann, 1978), supervisors differentiate in their relationships with subordinates
based on employee performance, background, and trustworthiness. High LMX or “in group”
relationships are characterized by mutual trust and support (Fairhurst & Chandler, 1989), working
closely together with internal common goals and mutual influence (Fairhurst, 2001), and social
exchanges extending beyond what is required of the employment contract (Linden, Wayne, &
Stillwell, 1993), leading some to characterize these as “high quality relationships” (Fairhurst, 1993;
Fairhurst, 2001; Fairhurst, Rogers, & Sarr, 1987; Deluga & Perry, 1991).


Convention
All Academic Convention can solve the abstract management needs for any association's annual meeting.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 8 of 38   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.